Annual Report on preparatory support for the statistical evaluation of the comparative assessment of GM plant field trials and for the evaluation of toxicological studies for GM plant food/feed safety – Lot 1: Comparative statistical analysis (2017)
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
To guide and assist applicants for the preparation and presentation of genetically modified (GM) plant market authorization applications, the GMO Panel of EFSA has developed guidance for the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed, which describes principles, concepts, data requirements and issues to be considered when performing the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed. The objective of this framework contract is to provide statistical support to the EFSA GMO Panel for the evaluation of GMO application dossiers with respect to the statistical analysis of collected data from field trials carried out for the comparative assessment according to the requirements described in the EFSA guidance on statistical considerations for the safety evaluation of GMOs and EFSA guidance on the risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants (EFSA, 2011).This report describes the tasks performed in 2017 under this framework contract and their outcome. The evaluation of the statistical analysis of applications during 2017 fulfilled to a large extent the requirements described in the guidance documents. However, a few non‐compliances were reported for most of the applications evaluated and actions were undertaken.